Eagle

Your mechanic is an idiot. That hose is ESSENTIAL. That's the vacuum for the crankcase ventilation system. It MUST be connected to a vacuum port on the throttle body or intake manifold. What the [bleep] kind of "mechanic" just goes around lopping off hoses the factory put there "because you don't need it"? Why does he think the factory put it there, because they had nothing better to do with eighteen inches of small diameter tubing?

Looking on car-part.com for Connecticut, I see several of the newer vintage, but most are listed as being from Grand Cherokees. I suppose the transfer case itself is the same, but since it would be bolted behind a different tranny I don't know if the input shaft is correct, and I wouldn't be able to get the shift gate and part-time/full-time bezel. And they're all well north of $200. It's too cold and snowy here now to be swapping anything right now. This is looking like a Spring project, so there's no rush, but if you stumble across one that has all the ancillary bits and pieces, I'm interested.

The rotors are calipers are different from yours, and yours won't fit the '93 axle. Be sure the front axle includes both the rotors and the calipers.

Took my wife out for dinner this evening through the blizzard, so it was 4WD all the way to the restaurant and all the way home. We were in the 2001 XJ, which has a 231 transfer case. Her 2000 XJ has a 242, and she was actively interested (which surprised me) in the difference. She knows with hers she can just stick it in full-time and forget it. The notion of having to shift out if you hit dry pavement (which was not an issue tonight) was foreign to her. I really would like to convert this XJ to a 242 so our daughter can drive it when she gets her license, and I'd like it to be as operationally similar to Mom's as possible. (Also so it can be the back-up vehicle for Mom.) I have a complete 88 or 89 XJ engine, AW-4 and 242 transfer case, but I know that transfer case won't bolt up to the 2001 tranny because of the input shaft spline mismatch. So ... What about swapping over the whole enchilada? Will the 88/89 AW-4 go into a 2001 XJ and work correctly, or are there controller issues? I have an 87 TCU and an 89 TCU, but I believe I had read that the 2001 uses an integrated PCM rather than the separate TCU of the earlier years. Has anyone dealt with this before?

I used a drill press. It's much easier to locate the holes accurately, and to get them straight. The original studs are 5mm. I replaced with 6mm, and I drilled holes that were slightly undersize so I could tap the holes and have the new ones screw in. That's why it was important for the holes to be straight. If you're just going to tack weld or J-B Weld maybe that's not as critical.

Mechanical speedo doesn't matter. The 93 will have a different spline count on the transfer case input shaft, so you can't swap over just the transfer case, you will have to swap the transmission and the transfer case together. But the 93 transfer case will work fine with the mechanical speedo cable. You'll have to retain the CPS from the 90, because the 93 Chrysler CPS doesn't work the same. You'll also need to retain the original 90 flex plate. The 93 transfer case doesn't have a vacuum port to control the front axle disconnect, but you'll be using the 93 front axle from the donor vehicle so that's a match-up. It should work.

Which one, Renault Deux Chevaux?

Pick-n-pull yards aren't legal in Connecticut but I've been to big ones in Massachusetts and Pennsylvania. Same price for whatever part (taillight, bumper, grille, etc.), regardless of what vehicle it comes off. The one in PA even has a printed price sheet -- I use his prices as my prices in the rare event I have a spare of something when somebody urgently needs it.

I'm sneakin' up on 69 years old, I've gone through four or maybe five chain saws, and I don't think I've ever seen a hickory tree.

There are few things more manlier than cooking on/in cast iron. And there are NO synthetic coatings that are as reliably non-stick as properly-seasoned cast iron cookware.

Why? Did you perchance happen to actually LOOK at the photo you posted of the father? What's the point of crate training a puppy when they don't make crates large enough to hold said puppy's adult size? I'm being half facetious, bit not entirely. The serious side of me says "I HATE crate training dogs." I never even heard of anyone doing it until I hit about 50 years of age. Maybe by then I was the old dog who couldn't learn new tricks, but I grew up with dogs -- lots of dogs -- and the concept behind crate training (assuming there is one) escapes me entirely.

The heater box does not have to be loosened. The blower motor is removed and replaced entirely from the engine compartment side of the firewall, and it's held in place by three nuts. Just unplug the wiring connector, remove the three nuts, and pull the blower motor straight forward. Oh, and squeeze the rubber tube to remove it from the motor housing.

Feliz Navidad a todos Fröhliches Weihnachten zu jedem Joyeux Noël a tout le monde

Interesting. My wife's 2000 XJ came from the factory with a tow package (I should know, I special ordered it) and the axle ratio is 3.54.

Reading comprehension is critical if you hope to intelligently engage in political discussion. Perhaps you overlooked this part of the proposed law that YOU cited: So existing "large capacity" ammunition feeding devices are grandfathered. The only difference between this and the 1994 AWB is that in 1994 they grandfathered any magazines that were manufactured before the effective date. Got any idea how many that was? Here's a hint -- Para-Ordnance changed the color of their hi-cap magazines from black to nickel when the ban kicked in. Before the ban, they made as many hi-caps as they could. The effective date was approximately EIGHTEEN YEARS AGO. You can STILL buy black, pre-ban, hi-capacity Para-Ordnance magazines today, from CDNN Sports in Texas. And a limit on magazine capacity will not make your pistol suddenly illegal. Get a grip on reality.

IMHO 2500 RPM is the sweet spot for these engines, and 2000 to 3000 seems to be more or less an optimal operating range.

Chrysler did not own Jeep until early 1988, and no Chrysler axles were used until 1990 or 1991. There were no XJs or MJs with a 3.31 ratio that used a Chrysler 8.25" axle, and I very much doubt there were any with the 3.73 ratio. All you're going to find is a few with 3.07 from 4.0L 5-speeds, a lot with 3.55 from the 4.0L automatics, and some 4.10s from the 4-banger.

You can't just swap the gears in the rear axle. The carrier break for the D35 is 3.31 and lower (numerically), and 3.55 and higher. You would have to swap over the ZJ c-clip carrier with the ring gear, and I don't know if that carrier will work in the older axle. It might ... but it might not.

I saw that after I entered my post. My bad. I think you're making a serious mistake. I think your gas mileage will be worse, not better. Let me explain: Completely aside from the fact that the most efficient engine speed is the speed at which it produces maximum torque, you should also take into account the heritage of this engine design. The injection dates to 1987, but the basic engine is an AMC engine that was first introduced in 1964. I grew up in a Hudson ==> AMC family, and we owned a number of different cars with earlier versions of this engine. Ours were all 3-speed manuals, and they all came with small-ish tires and 3.08 gears. The overall drive ratio worked out to 24 MPH per 1000 RPM, which conveniently came to 2500 RPM for a 60 MPH cruise. That's what the engine was designed to run at. But we didn't cruise at 60 MPH. My brother and I were gearheads. We raced ... any kind of racing you could think of. And, being young and immortal, we drove perhaps "a bit" in excess of posted speed limits. This is New England, however, so prolonged cruise at 90 MPH wasn't viable, but 75 was pretty customary. Another neat round number from that final drive ratio: 3000 RPM gave us exactly 72 MPH. And cruising at 3000 RPM or a bit more still gave us decent performance and very respectable fuel economy ... although my Rambler American wouldn't get 28 MPG at 75 MPH, it was still in the mid-20s. I had the American while I was in the Army and stationed in Maryland, and I got it in my head that it was important to be able to break 100 MPH in a box on wheels. I tweaked the tuning, installed a straight-through glasspack muffler, and converted to an open air clear ... and very late one night on I-95 somewhere a bit north of Edgewood Arsenal, MD, I pushed the box-on-wheels up to a calculated 104 miles per hour. I was a happy camper. Winter arrived. I needed snow tires, and in 1967 the pay for a PFC-E3 wasn't anything to get excited about. My brother at the time was driving a bigger Rambler with a V-8, and he had just switched over to Michelan radials. So he gave me his bias-ply snow tires from the previous winter. I don't remember the sizes, because they were in one of the old tire sizing schemes, but the bottom line is they were a couple or three sizes larger than what came standard on my American, and probably about two inches larger in diameter. And with those snow tires on and no other changes, my top speed DROPPED from 104 MPH to 80 MPH. The gas mileage took a dive, too, but I don't recall the exact figure. The speed, though, is permanently etched in my brain because I remember being out there on an empty stretch of I-95 looking at the speedometer reading 74 with my foot pressed all the way to the floor, thinking "WTF?" Bottom line, the power curve crossed the drag curve. The engineers knew what they were doing when they chose the gear ratio and tire size, and they had optimized the drive train. 104 MPH in stock configuration was 4333 RPM, which was right about the horsepower peak of the engine. What a surprise -- once you reach max power, you can't go faster! I was shocked, I tell you ... shocked! My best guess is that the larger snow tires were about 2 inches taller. Assuming that the originals were approximately 25" tires, which I think is about correct, that's about an 8 percent difference. Doesn't sound like a lot. But with the stock tires, 80 MPH would have been 3,333 RPM. Cut that by 8 percent for the bigger tires, and that's 3,067. That's where the drag curve crossed the power curve. And you want to cruise at 90 MPH at 2000 RPM? NOT ... GONNA ... HAPPEN. Not in this world.

The replacement slaves come with a big zip tie holding them in the compressed position. You are NOT supposed to cut that tie when you install the slave cylinder. After everything is buttoned up, the zip tie is intended to break the first time you step on the pedal, so when the bellows expands it pulls brake (clutch) fluid into the slave from the master cylinder.

It's no longer available, for what it's worth. But they do help at sea level, if you don't drive hard. The Renix system allows lots of timing advance, and then retards it when the knock sensor senses ... knock. The high altitude CPS allows even more advance, which helps gas mileage at highway cruise if you're on moderately level terrain and not hauling a heavy load. The knock sensor takes care of any detonation issues under load, so it's totally transparent to the driver.

Why would you want another overdrive? Your info says you have a 4.0L with an AX-15. That means you have 3.08 gears. Even with stock tires, in 5th gear your engine is only turning 1960 RPM at 70 MPH. That's below the torque peak of the engine. In my '88 Cherokee 5-speed, I have verified that I get the same or better gas mileage in 4th as I do in 5th, because the engine is operating near it's torque peak in 4th gear on the highway. What would the reduction ratio of an additional overdrive be, maybe 0.75:1? That would reduce your 70 MPH engine speed to 1470 RPM. Your gas mileage would suck, and you'd have to downshift for even a modest upgrade. A long time ago a prestigious British motorsports magazine had an article by an automotive engineer who cautioned against being seduced by the term "overdrive." He said the proper engineering definition is that an overdrive ratio is any ratio that results in the vehicle being capable of LESS top speed than the next lower ratio. I have never attempted to push either an XJ or an MJ to flat-out maximum speed in either 4th or 5th gear, but based on other vehicles I HAVE done such with, I have no doubt that our fifth gear is already a true overdrive and that our trucks can probably go faster in 4th than they can in 5th. And that means that a further overdrive would be worse than useless, it would be counter-productive. You would do better putting in one of the new 6-speed trannies, and going back to 3.08 gears (or even 2.87 if you can find 'em).

But your Wrangler has a 5-speed with 4.10 gears. Trying to get 31s rolling with a 4-banger and 3.55 gears is going to require a lot of clutch slipping.

The reason NO aftermarket exhaust can sound good on a 2.5L is that you have a basic 4-cylinder engine with a mild factory cam and a single exhaust, and the compression ratio isn't especially high. The pulses are evenly spaced and the cam has moderately long duration and moderate overlap, so by the time the exhaust gets to the outlet of the tailpipe it's more or less a uniform flow, not a series of individual pulses. If you want it to sound more "macho," you'll have to invest in a more aggressive cam, something with higher lift and shoter duration that will generate more distinct power pulses.

With an ARB in the rear and a Trutrac in the front, that's a steal -- if you want or need an ARB and a Trutrac. If you don't need 'em, then you're paying for expensive toys you won't be getting full value from.